Britishness, between "To Be" and "Not To Be"

"It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates.

Candidate A associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife. Which of these candidates would be your choice? Take your time, because it's an important decision.

Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler..."

Without guaranteeing the truthfulness of the information included in this riddle, which many of you may have read on the Internet, I dare formulate two conclusions: lack of vices not always equals moral integrity and "the power of example" is selective when it comes to the qualities and flaws of a public figure.

"You have enemies?" Winston Churchill once rhetorically asked. "Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."Winston Churchill is, perhaps, the leading figure of the British old guard, as he made history not only for the United Kingdom, but for the entire world, as well. Several decades of cultural and social metamorphosis divide him and today's British politicians. But, in reality, the differences are not so big. Only the challenges are different.

Two centuries of imperialism helped the British to export their values to some of the world's remotest corners. But history has a habit of repeating itself and, in the case of Great Britain, it worked as a boomerang. London is today one of the world's most eclectic cities, and even the tight upper lipped Londoners are baffled by the 'invasion' of foreign cultures, as it questions their own national identity.

Less than one year after taking office, Gordon Brown and his Cabinet are trying to find a generally accepted definition of the concept called "Britishness." The Government is thus attempting to realign values, rights and responsibilities. However, as many analysts have remarked, the problems is that such a task is almost impossible in a society mainly defined by individualism.

The truth is that, as globalisation encroaches the world, people are giving increasingly more thought to what defines them as individuals and as nations. Beyond the symbolic elements that have traditionally labelled every country, it is often noted that values, standards and principles are, in fact, the same.

The business environment is perhaps the best example, because concepts such as transparency, fair play, professionalism, quality and customer loyalty have become international principles. Actually, as a British businessman said, in today's business world traditional roots are no longer as relevant as the location chosen by the multinationals for their headquarters.

And these locations are often financial and economic hubs, such as London and New York.
Back to the gauntlet thrown down by Gordon Brown, it is hard to believe that a generally accepted consensus will be reached. In fact, the only consensus may be that ... there is no consensus. No definition, the Brits are saying, can encompass their national essence.

Hence, the definitions proposed by some of them: No motto please, we're British or We British are the indigenous peoples of the British Isles. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

articol scris de Ana-Maria GAVRILA -